Wuerl, D.C. archdiocese shot down on birth control coverage
WASHINGTON — The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington and the archdiocese's schools lost a bid to freeze a judge's order that requires them to provide cost-free coverage for contraceptive services to their employees.
U.S. District Judge Amy Jackson in Washington on Monday denied the request of Archbishop Donald Wuerl, formerly of Pittsburgh, to block her Friday order in which she rejected arguments that the requirement to provide cost-free coverage for contraceptive services violates religious freedom. The claims are “practically identical” to those the archdiocese made in a previous case that Jackson threw out in January, she said in her ruling.
The Supreme Court on Nov. 26 agreed to hear two cases brought by business owners who object on religious grounds to the birth-control mandate. The lawsuits by the for-profit employers, the craft store chain Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp., will be the court's first look at President Obama's biggest legislative accomplishment since a majority of the justices upheld the core of the law in 2012.
Previously, appeals courts in Chicago, Denver and Washington ruled the mandate may violate religious freedom, while appellate panels in Philadelphia and Cincinnati had sided with the government.
Jackson's ruling conflicts with a Dec. 16 ruling by U.S. District Judge Brian Cogan in Brooklyn, N.Y., barring the government from enforcing the mandate against a group of New York-based Catholic health and educational organizations. This month, the University of Notre Dame filed a complaint in federal court in South Bend, Ind., challenging the law.
David Timothy Raimer, a lawyer representing the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington, didn't immediately return a call seeking comment on Monday's ruling.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.